IMPORTANT POINT
Possession must be proven to claim a permanent prohibitory injunction, and failure to establish title or pay requisite court fees results in dismissal of claims.

JUDGMENT :

1. The learned Counsel for the appellant in RSA Nos.1489/2011 and 351/2012 and the 1^st respondent in RSA No.1098/2011 reported that he relinquished vakalath for his parties. Accordingly, as per Order dated 16.01.2025 the Registry was directed to issue notice to the appellant in RSA Nos.1489/2011 and 351/2012 and the 1^st respondent in RSA No.1098/2011 by speed post. Notice to the said party is returned with the endorsement unclaimed. It is seen that in RSA No.351/2012 balance court fee is also not paid. Accordingly, R.S.A.No.1489/2011 and RSA No.351/2012 are liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

2. RSA No.1489/2011, 351/2012 and RSA No.1098/2011 arise from two suits- OS No. 341/1998 and 554/2002 which are disposed by the Trial Court by a common judgment along with counter claim in O.S No.341/1998. As per the common judgment of the Trial Court, the suits were dismissed and the counterclaim raised by the 1^st defendant was allowed. The plaintiff in the suit filed appeals before the First Appellate Court challenging the judgments and decrees in both the suits and in the counterclaim. The First Appellate Court dismissed the challenge against the judgments and decrees in the suit but allowed the appeal with respect to the challenge against the judgment and decree in the counterclaim, setting aside the judgment and decree in the counterclaim in O.S No.341/1998. RSA No.1098/2011 is filed by the 1^st defendant challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court setting aside the judgment and decree in the counterclaim.

3. O.S No.341/1998 was filed by the plaintiff therein, one Joy, seeking permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to 11 acres in R.Sy.No.189/1 of Manissery Village in Ottappalam Taluk. O.S No.554/2002 is filed by the very same Joy for damages on the allegation that the defendants cut and removed trees from the very same plaint schedule property. In the counterclaim in O.S.No.341/1998, the 1^st defendant, Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad, claimed a permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the very same plaint schedule property. Since RSA No. 1489/2011 and 351/2012 at the instance of the plaintiff are liable to be dismissed for non- prosecution, the question to be considered is with regard to the counter claim in OS No.341/1998.

4. RSA No.1381/2011 is filed by the 1^st defendant in O.S. No.341/1998 Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad against one Sukumaran Nair as the sole defendant. It arises from O.S.No. 326/2006 filed by him for permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property therein having an extent of 2 Acres in R.Sy No.189/1 of Manissery Village in Ottappalam Taluk. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. RSA No.1381/2011 is filed challenging the judgment and decree in the suit which is confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The question in RSA No.1381/2011 is whether the appellant is entitled to get a permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property having an extent of 2 Acres mentioned therein.

5. In sum and substance, the question to be considered in the surviving appeals RSA Nos.1098/2011 and 1381/2011 is whether Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad is entitled to get permanent prohibitory injunction with respect to the plaint schedule properties in each case namely 11 acres and 2 acres both situated in R.Sy No.189/1.

6. I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant in RSA No.1098/2011 and 1381/2011, Sri. P. Jayaram. There is no appearance for the respondents.

7. The parties are referred as per their names for better understanding.

8. Admittedly the plaint schedule properties in both the cases originally belonged to one Ravi Namboodiripad of Varikassery Mana. Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad is the Son of the brother of Ravi Namboodiripad. Ravi Namboodiripad died in the year 1980 without having any wife and children. Sankaranarayanan Namboodiripad claimed the plaint schedule property alleg